NO, no, no ... FREE SPEECH in the Constitution, hear me out

[Miigwech]

If these strict constitutionalists want to argue free speech just as they want to argue their second amendment rights, purity, as stated in the Constitution, well then let's have one open discussion on the floor of the House and Senate and finally call then to show their cards and end this stupid argument once and for all. The Constitution is a living document, if it were not than most of our laws would be become moot. This is what repubs want the SC to eventually do to every decision ..... but that is for another discussion.

So we say, get a musket if you want your right to bear arms because that is the only arms/guns the Founding Fathers were referring to. Say what? They say. Logical we say. Brain freeze .... from there I have never heard one good argument ....

When Free Speech is referred to, the Founding Fathers never mentioned social media or TV or anything else radio, electronic or mass media where millions around the world could be reached by a tweet and being held ACCOUNTABLE TO NO ONE !?!? That is too much power in the hands of a few, something our Founders were totally against... they only thought of standing on the soap box or of the Free Press consisting of news papers and pamphlets .... seriously, we must reign in these seditious members of congress ... some of them who will sit as jury over trump and continue to post or allow anti-American stuff on their Facebook pages (I was on cruz page the other day fighting every crazy RW crap and this MF cruz does nothing to stop any of it).

Wake up !!!! The Free Speech parasites are co opting our DEMOCRACY ... just like they always have ... but this time it is deadly serious.

WHEN DID SEDITION, TREASON, CONSPIRACY, HATE SPEECH, INCITEMENT TO RIOT .... become FREE SPEECH?????? JUST BECAUSE IT IS SOCIAL MEDIA ??????????????????????????????????????????????

[elleng]

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Bayard]

2. They could not possibly have foreseen the current situation

They're probably whirling in their graves right now, it you believe in such things.

[mr_lebowski]

3. I hear what you're saying but realistically we're likely going to have to rely on

the ownership of social media platforms to 'do the right thing', I don't think the Federal Government can force them to shut people up. Part of issue being anyone could somewhat reasonably say they are 'the press' whenever they post to Twitter or Facebook. There's no formal definition I don't think that prevents that argument.

We could strengthen libel laws though.

And we can boycott platforms, and their advertisers, and let them know why.

[Miigwech]

5. So, I guess we turn our Democracy over to the judgement of Corporations

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2021/01/26/youtube-ban-former-president-trumps-channel-remain-suspended/4265336001/

[mr_lebowski]

6. I pretty much said what I have to say on this ...

Doesn't mean I necessarily celebrate the reality of the situation, just calling it how I see it.

[Mr.Bill]

4. I like to tell people there's nothing in the Constitution

giving them the right to own a gun. When they argue, I point out that their right to own a gun is in an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is designed to be changed, or amended.

[frazzled]

7. The Constitution says only that the *Government* can't impede free speech

I can certainly tell someone to shut up, and so can Twitter, or DU.

And the government’s inability to prosecute speech is not universal. There are exceptions.